[copyleft-next] proprietary relicensing clause [was Re: Compatibility with Eclipse Public License.]

Luis Villa luis at tieguy.org
Wed Aug 8 19:11:05 UTC 2012


On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Richard Fontana
<fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> It says "this clause b)" in the latest version in the gitorious
> repository. In case the idea isn't clear, it's quite simple: if you
> (or rather 'We' - in fact it has to be the 'original We' to be done
> legitimately) do what Bradley calls "proprietary relicensing", that's
> fine, but then copyleft-next turns into a non-copyleft license, thus
> permitting all licensees to do their own proprietary relicensing if
> they so wish.
>
> I have a revised version I haven't pushed that I think makes this a
> bit clearer. As a separate paragraph:
>
>        The preceding condition shall not apply to Your Derived Work if
>        We Proprietary-Relicense. "Proprietary-Relicense" means to
>        commercially offer a work that would be a Covered Work had You
>        prepared it, under a license that fails to satisfy version
>        1.111 of the Free Software Definition as published by the Free
>        Software Foundation ("FSF").

Could you give a bit more background on this clause, Richard? I had
flagged it as "ask Richard what the purpose of this clause is"
(because I didn't understand it) but hadn't had an opportunity to ask.

Luis


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list